Author
Topic: Aionios: Let's clear the water (Read 69369 times)

Apocatastasis

Apocastasis, yes I agree the fundamental premise of UR is about God and his love - "premise" was not the right word in my original statement. But for me it was one of the fundamental concepts that caused me to question ET and really investigate UR.

I do not question this.

Quote

In your view does aion always refer to an "age"?

No. It refers to eternity in John 6, for example, where it refers to eternity. That aion and aionios refer to eternity is evident considering that they are juxtaposed with perishable, mortal life.

Quote

I will continue further research into the matter, as I continue to research all things that lead to the truth, although it will probably take me some time (possibly years). Is the Plato stuff really required reading to fully understand this? I have read mixed reviews on Plato - some say its good, others say its irrelevant as he didn't write/influence the bible - biblical words gain their meaning based on their contextual usage in the scriptures.

Indeed, meaning is gotten from their contextual usage in the Bible. This is something that Tony's viewpoint does not account for, which is why his position is so easily refuted.

To say that Plato did not influence New Testament thought is to contradict the plain evidence. John's gospel, for instance, is heavily influenced by Plato and ancient Greek philosophy in general.

Study the word aionios further, legoman. Study its etymology and its semantical evolution. Good stuff.

Quote

Do you have any links/articles which more fully explain this viewpoint? I always welcome other viewpoints. As I have learned, its best to evaluate all angles when searching for the truth.

Apocatastasis

Since "elohim" can be either capitalized or not (god or God) according to what the translator believes it could be . . . Parkhurst contends, "Thou hast blessed the false gods and Molech," and so based upon that, Naboth was stoned.

From the TSK:

Quote

"Some, with Parkhurst, would render the original, bairachta elohim wamailech, ""Thou hast blessed the gods and Molech;"" a sense, however, which seems extremely forced, and is not acknowledged by any of the ancient versions, though the LXX. and Vulgate render bairachta by [eulogese] benedixit, ""blessed."" It is no unusual thing for a word to have opposite senses. Exd 22:28; Lev 24:15; Mat 26:59-66; Jhn 10:33; Act 6:13"

Incidentally, haven't you noticed how selective you are when you appeal to authority? Sure, you'll site Parkhurst as an authority now, but when he tells you that aionios can mean eternal, you'll have nothing of the sort!

Apocastasis, yes I agree the fundamental premise of UR is about God and his love - "premise" was not the right word in my original statement. But for me it was one of the fundamental concepts that caused me to question ET and really investigate UR.

I do not question this.

Quote

In your view does aion always refer to an "age"?

No. It refers to eternity in John 6, for example, where it refers to eternity. That aion and aionios refer to eternity is evident considering that they are juxtaposed with perishable, mortal life.

Quote

I will continue further research into the matter, as I continue to research all things that lead to the truth, although it will probably take me some time (possibly years). Is the Plato stuff really required reading to fully understand this? I have read mixed reviews on Plato - some say its good, others say its irrelevant as he didn't write/influence the bible - biblical words gain their meaning based on their contextual usage in the scriptures.

Indeed, meaning is gotten from their contextual usage in the Bible. This is something that Tony's viewpoint does not account for, which is why his position is so easily refuted.

To say that Plato did not influence New Testament thought is to contradict the plain evidence. John's gospel, for instance, is heavily influenced by Plato and ancient Greek philosophy in general.

Study the word aionios further, legoman. Study its etymology and its semantical evolution. Good stuff.

Quote

Do you have any links/articles which more fully explain this viewpoint? I always welcome other viewpoints. As I have learned, its best to evaluate all angles when searching for the truth.

I agree with the premise that is brought out here about the meaning of Olam. In the translation I am working on I translate it as "to the horizon," for "to everlasting", "from the horizon," for "from everlasting", and "horizonal filled-stomach" for eternal life, which shows the concrete terms which are conveyed by the world Olam, meaning literally:

Eye led to water

This is speaking of the horizon you can see from looking out over the sea.

Cool. Let me know what you think Plato is saying in Timaeus 37D. How is he using the term aionios, and how does it relate to time?

What I see Plato saying is that the physical creation is a physical copy of things that are hidden, things beyond our view, not time per se, but the state of being, that which is spiritual.

Time itself, things that are moving as "was" and "will be", all imitate aiona [38a], that which is hidden from view, that which is beyond our view; again, that which is spiritual in nature. That is the sense in which time relates to aionios, from what I can tell from his writings there. God alone, who is spiritual, aidos in nature, is he who "is", which is the state of being that does not change or move.

Apocatastasis

What I see Plato saying is that the physical creation is a physical copy of things that are hidden, things beyond our view, not time per se, but the state of being, that which is spiritual.

Time itself, things that are moving as "was" and "will be", all imitate aiona [38a], that which is hidden from view, that which is beyond our view; again, that which is spiritual in nature. That is the sense in which time relates to aionios, from what I can tell from his writings there. God alone, who is spiritual, aidos in nature, is he who "is", which is the state of being that does not change or move.

By implication or substitution, neither is explicit; fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated. Thus, an argument on this would seem to be an unwise investment or expenditure for anyone.

"Do you still hold fast your integrity?

Go ahead and die!"

Now, this leaves nothing to speculation. Whereas, the former is merely an expression, but the latter is truly from the heart of his wife – die!

Just tossing this out there for thought and consideration.

Although, most of the translations in my possession (a dozen, or so) say: Curse

As an example:The Emphasized Bible by J. B. Rotherham

And so it was, when the days of the banquet came round, that Job sent and hallowed them, and rising early in the morning offered ascending-sacrifices according to the number of them all; for Job said, Peradventure (by chance, with doubt or uncertainty) my sons have sinned, and have cursed God in their hearts. (Job 1:5)

The Hebrew words "if not" are part of an idiomatic development from a oath formula to the idea of "surely." The idea is, "May God do so-and-so to me if he does not . . . ." So Satan was saying that Job would surely "bless" God to his face. This is the tip off that the words have been adjusted by the scribes to avoid the offensive thought of "cursing" God. But the rewrite with "bless" is so obvious that readers would know the change was made for reverential reasons. That is why the scribes could afford to make such a change; it is so obviously a doctoring.

The idea of blessing someone to their face seems pretty meaningless. If one blessed them behind their back, it would still be a blessing and in that sense would not differ much from blessing them to their face. Usually the temptation is to speak better of someone in their presence than away from them, so blessing God to his face seems "easier" than blessing him behind his back. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who might curse someone behind their back but would not curse them to their face. If you curse someone to their face, you are really angry and rejecting. Just as improbable as Job's wife telling Job to bless God and die is the idea of blessing here.

For years I've read everything in English that I could find on eon/olam and some of it repeatedly. Hanson is superlative.

It has become very apparent that usually translators are hired by some source of money. Like the KJV has: "...mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together. I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man..." (Ho 11:8-9) It is not God's heart that is turned, but His womb is trembling within Him. But, unbearably radical, rather than compare the human and the Divine, He actually says: "I Elohim am not male." These world class Hebrew scholars keep making the same error into our times. Unlike most men I've asked, most thinking women can immediately tell you why it was mistranslated. Today they actually translate Scripture to sell to a target group.

Kittel was for the last half of the 20th Century, and only recently being supplanted, as the foremost authority in English for N.T. Greek. Yet, he didn't even begin his multi-volumed Theological Dictionary until after he became a Nazi. Strong's only tells you how it has been translated in the KJV, though there are recent altered versions. We aren't supposed to lean very much on other authorities anyway. God wants us to grow up and understand for ourselves. You don't need to be an expert on an entire language to be an authority on some of it by doing exhaustive studies on certain important words.

I'm not a slobbering idiot! Some thing concerning a measurement of time of which there are a minimum of five that all come to an end, as well as there being before and after these things, cannot also mean that thing is an infinity of time. An adjective and a noun are only other forms of the same word. This is obvious, fall off a log easy kind of obvious. I don't care who or how many are saying otherwise, other than that they too should acknowledge the truth. I have read the Scripture for myself. I must stand before God and give an answer for the things done in the body some day. The thoughts and intents of my heart will be examined. Unless I want to offend God, I cannot deny what is clearly written. I will teach it until or unless I do become a slobbering idiot. Well, David saved his own life by drooling in his beard. Who knows...? Lay this truth of God aside and bow to their other mediators, their perverse practice of men over other men defying the kingdom of God which is in direct relationship with me and each of His children and I could get a job preaching in the whorehouses of Babylon. Since not, they spread lies against me and use the full force of the arm of the flesh that they think they can get by with. These things have been and are happening. God says only so far and no more. God has the keys to even fire out of heaven for the worhty.

I don't have to use the knowledge of eon/olam so much anymore. Most people I meet are simply so lazy, coupled with the working of the cherebim to make them feel revulsion to the words of life they can't endure a five minute explanation. So it's good I discovered that they can't show me a single place, there simply isn't any statement whatsoever, never even once in the KJV Bible stating unequivocally any humans at all are or ever will be in the lake of fire! Of course most have the problem of not being able to even find one verse on "hell" or much of anything else on their own. They are so well informed that they are at least sure I'm headed to hell because I'm trying to get them to read Scripture for themselves. What a perfect world! and in all it's gorgousness!

Tony, you're supposed to offer the Emperor his pinch of incense. He wants to "gorge" on your "root fallacy!"

« Last Edit: January 28, 2009, 10:52:36 AM by reFORMer »

Logged

I went to church; but, the Church wasn't on the program! JESUS WANTS HIS BODY BACK!! MEET WITHOUT HUMAN HEADSHIP!!!

It's true that Tony is not the only one arguing from the position he holds. It's also true that Apo is not the only one arguing from the position he holds. Both arguments I have seen come from universalists.

I think it's also true they will never agree....Perhaps a closer study of the word Olam could help. For example asking Jewish scholars what it means.Then compare the use/translation of olam into aion(ios) in the LXX.The translators of the LXX most likely had a very good understanding of both words as used during translation.Of cource you can argue the meaning of the words changed afterwards. But still it may be a good step?

Logged

1 Timothy 2:3-4 ...God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved...John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

that shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time: houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions, and in the coming age life eternal. (Darby)

for me it seems aionios life is connected here primarilly to the age to come

who shall not receive a hundredfold, now, in this season, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, - with persecutions, and, in the age that is coming, life age-abiding. (Rotherham)

Since "elohim" can be either capitalized or not (god or God) according to what the translator believes it could be . . . Parkhurst contends, "Thou hast blessed the false gods and Molech," and so based upon that, Naboth was stoned.

From the TSK:

Quote

"Some, with Parkhurst, would render the original, bairachta elohim wamailech, ""Thou hast blessed the gods and Molech;"" a sense, however, which seems extremely forced, and is not acknowledged by any of the ancient versions, though the LXX. and Vulgate render bairachta by [eulogese] benedixit, ""blessed."" It is no unusual thing for a word to have opposite senses. Exd 22:28; Lev 24:15; Mat 26:59-66; Jhn 10:33; Act 6:13"

Incidentally, haven't you noticed how selective you are when you appeal to authority? Sure, you'll site Parkhurst as an authority now, but when he tells you that aionios can mean eternal, you'll have nothing of the sort!

Gabe, just citing what someone said is not using the fallacy of appealing to authority. If that's the case you are your own fallacy for you come across as your own authority.Gabe, it is a fact that elohim can be gods.Furthermore I checked out your Exd.22:28; Lev.24:15; Mat.26:59-66; Jhn 10:33 and Acts 6:13 above and none of them prove that words can have opposite meanings. The ones who curse God are using qalal (curse) not barach (bless) in the OT citations. And the NT citations have nothing whatesover to do with double meaning of words.

1Ki 21:10 and cause two men--sons of worthlessness--to sit over-against him, and they testify of him, saying, Thou hast blessed God and Melech; and they have brought him out, and stoned him, and he dieth.' and two men--sons of worthlessness--come in, and sit over-against him, and the men of worthlessness testify of him, even Naboth, before the people, saying, `Naboth blessed God and Melech;' and they take him out to the outside of the city, and stone him with stones, and he dieth; (Young's Literal Translation)

You asked yourself why would they kill that guy for blessing God? They wouldn't have. But being a Jew, they would have killed the guy for blessing elohim (with a lowercase e and blessing Moloch (a false god)). They would not have killed him for blessing God. And they would have killed the guy if he blessed GOD AND BLESSED MOLOCH (the false god). So either way, barach is not curse

Clark's commentary states: "Moloch, Milcom, and Melech, in the language of different nations, all signify a king, and imply the sun, which was called the king of heaven; and consequently the addition of אדר adar, which signifies powerful, illustrious, to the one, and of ענה anah, which implies to return, to answer, to the other, means no more than the mighty or the oracular Moloch. And as the children were offered to him, it appears that he was the same with the Moloch of the Ammonites. See Univ. Hist. and Calmet. Mr. Locke is also of opinion that these two names were expressive of one and the same deity."

The Parkhurst Lexicon

"Olam (aeon) seems to be used much more for an indefinite than for an infinite time."Aionion is the word the LXX scholars used to translate Olam in its adjectival form. So they too knew that aionion is never used of infinite time.

The Bible is so against philosophy that by you saying that Plato influenced God's inspired word is so pathetic I hardly have words for your deception. The New Testament is a revelation from God, not Plato. Paul always warned the church against the philosophers. Read 1 Corinthians 1,2 & 3 and see what Paul says about the wisdom of the wise such as Plato and Aristotle. Gabe, why don't you just take the next step and say Satanists influenced the Bible? Besides, Plato never used aion nor aionion for eternal. Again, the adjective cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derived. I didn't make that rule up Gabe.

Also you keep harping about how a word's meaning is due to its context. So you are saying that a context can force aionios's meaning into a different meaning. But that goes against the laws of language. It is the duty of the adjective to force its meaning upon the object or noun and not the other way around.For instance "eonian God" in Roman.16:26 and "eonian chastening" of Matthew 25:46 are not telling us that eonian can be longer since the word "God" forces its meaning upon eonian in 16:26 whereas, to uphold Universalism we must say that the eonian of 25:46 must of necessity be shorter since it is not speaking of God. That is dishonest and against the laws of grammar. Both are telling us that God is the God pertaining to the eons and the chastening is pertaining to the eon(s). Nothing more, nothing less.

Read any Greek training books such as by Mounce and look up the rule of the adjective and you will see I am correct. I don't make these things up as I go along Gabe.

« Last Edit: January 28, 2009, 03:32:13 PM by Tony N »

Logged

Just because God says He will save all mankinddoes not necessarily mean He won't.

I'm using horizonal as the adjective for horizon, and the Hebrew idea behind the meaning for life was to have one's stomach filled. What one would call eternal life I would call horizonal filled-stomach, meaning to have a fullness of life that is spiritual, in another realm, life that is not bound by or affected by time. It is unchanging like the one to whom it is derived, namely, Jesus Christ. Truly as He said, we will never hunger again nor be thirsty again. That state is what will be our spiritual existence, which is unseeable to the senses, because of it's being of a different realm.

What I see Plato saying is that the physical creation is a physical copy of things that are hidden, things beyond our view, not time per se, but the state of being, that which is spiritual.

Time itself, things that are moving as "was" and "will be", all imitate aiona [38a], that which is hidden from view, that which is beyond our view; again, that which is spiritual in nature. That is the sense in which time relates to aionios, from what I can tell from his writings there. God alone, who is spiritual, aidos in nature, is he who "is", which is the state of being that does not change or move.

So then you can see that aion/aionios is here used of timelessness?

Timelessness? I can see how someone could understand it that way. I also can see though, that perhaps Plato isn't speaking about aiona as timelessness, but as an always present state of being, one that "cannot become older or younger by time, nor ever did or has become, or hereafter will be, older or younger, nor is subject at all to any of those states which affect moving and sensible things and of which generation is the cause."

I see him speaking about the creation, that which is constantly in a state of change, belonging to the physical realm, as being an image of Himself, who does not. So when he says: "Wherefore he resolved to have a moving image of eternity," I understand him to be saying that God made a moving image of what is unmoving, eternal being defined thus, not by time itself, or the lack of it, but of what time consists of, its parameters. God is not confined to the parameters of the time he created. When he created time, he entered into it and has complete control of it, not being subject to it nor affected by it as his creation is.

Exactly. One should not say that since "all" (overstatement on Gabe's part) Bible translators translated barak as "curse" in some passages in Job that they therefore must be correct and that I must be wrong. That is appealing to authority.

And the article also stated that accusing someone of not having authority therefore their stance must be wrong is an ad hominem attack such as Gabe also loves to use.

Logged

Just because God says He will save all mankinddoes not necessarily mean He won't.

The Hebrew words "if not" are part of an idiomatic development from a oath formula to the idea of "surely." The idea is, "May God do so-and-so to me if he does not . . . ." So Satan was saying that Job would surely "bless" God to his face. This is the tip off that the words have been adjusted by the scribes to avoid the offensive thought of "cursing" God. But the rewrite with "bless" is so obvious that readers would know the change was made for reverential reasons. That is why the scribes could afford to make such a change; it is so obviously a doctoring.

The idea of blessing someone to their face seems pretty meaningless. If one blessed them behind their back, it would still be a blessing and in that sense would not differ much from blessing them to their face. Usually the temptation is to speak better of someone in their presence than away from them, so blessing God to his face seems "easier" than blessing him behind his back. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who might curse someone behind their back but would not curse them to their face. If you curse someone to their face, you are really angry and rejecting. Just as improbable as Job's wife telling Job to bless God and die is the idea of blessing here.

Comments?

So the whole Bible is doctored by scribes? How pathetic. Gabe, quit going to those "scholars" and sit at God's feet and learn what He has to say. If He used "bless" for Barak then that is what He meant, not curse.

Logged

Just because God says He will save all mankinddoes not necessarily mean He won't.

martincisneros

So the whole Bible is doctored by scribes? How pathetic. Gabe, quit going to those "scholars" and sit at God's feet and learn what He has to say. If He used "bless" for Barak then that is what He meant, not curse.

Actually, it can be what He said, but not what He meant. An implicit rolling of the eyes while saying something sarcastically is prevalent in all languages and the implication in Job is very obviously to curse. Context and usage are just as important in discerning the meaning of a text and not just a strict word for word parody. Bless would be a more precise translation, but those that translate it as curse aren't in error although it's yielding to the temptation to interpret in the translation work which should almost never happen.

So the whole Bible is doctored by scribes? How pathetic. Gabe, quit going to those "scholars" and sit at God's feet and learn what He has to say. If He used "bless" for Barak then that is what He meant, not curse.

Actually, it can be what He said, but not what He meant. An implicit rolling of the eyes while saying something sarcastically is prevalent in all languages and the implication in Job is very obviously to curse. Context and usage are just as important in discerning the meaning of a text and not just a strict word for word parody. Bless would be a more precise translation, but those that translate it as curse aren't in error although it's yielding to the temptation to interpret in the translation work which should almost never happen.

But Martin, not all translators translated barak as curse in Job. So it is not obvious as you might suspect.Satan was telling God to put His hand against Job and then we'll see if he will bless (barak) you.Job's wife was not telling Job to "curse God and die." She said to Job "bless God and die." In other words, Job, say your final blessings and just die.

So it is simple to suggest that scribes doctored God's word but quite another matter to prove it. The ones who doctored it are the ones who mistranslated barak as curse because they did not think God knew what He was talking about.

Logged

Just because God says He will save all mankinddoes not necessarily mean He won't.

Dear sven,Have you checked out the Concordant Version in German/Deutch?

yes i own this translation and some other writings from the "friends of concordant publishing"

Quote

Does it really make sense to you that that which has no beginning and no end can end and be taken over by another span which has no beginning and no end? It clouds the truth to me.

no it doesn't, aion in the sense of age, makes sense in every occurrence in my opinion; while aion translated as eternity would seem obviously wrong in many occurrences

but my question really is:

from Eternity to Eternity does this make any sense in English language - is it even "possible" to say so?, have you ever heard this phrase before i mentioned it?

Only in the comic movie called "Toy Story" with Tom Hanks where the good toy often said "to infinity and beyond!" As if one can get beyond infinity!It makes no sense to think in terms of "from eternity to eternity." How can one get past one eternity for another to begin? It is just philosophical mumbo jumbo.

Besides the more literal translation of the Greek is "for the eons of the eons" where eons is plural and in the genitive case (of) such as "God's Son" is genitive and can be written "Son of God." So it would have to be "eternities OF the eternities." But "eons of the eons" makes much better sense. They are the two greatest eons out of all the eons which went before.

« Last Edit: January 28, 2009, 05:59:14 PM by Tony N »

Logged

Just because God says He will save all mankinddoes not necessarily mean He won't.

Paul Hazelwood

The problem can be trying to refute a philosophical point or metaphorical outlook by determining that two words together doesn't make sense.

It's not about taking the translated text and comparing it, it is taking the concept behind the words. I would say that translators who use words in such a manner is not about bad scholarship as is often asserted by those who argue for their point of view over words. I would say that translators are trying their best not to interject their bias and opinion into it.

When we study, then we can delve in to the definitions, usages and reason for ourselves.

God intended to be that way, "let us reason together", God cannot be threatened, sorry, no offense, but he cannot.

Whether the two translated words together make sense or not does not change the meaning behind what was being told in the language being translated.

Both can be correct when looking at the literal and metaphorical value.

It is said Gods correction is temporary.... Really? Explain when Gods corrective value stops?